61–70 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, accidents happen. If you were to trip over the carpet and that venerable PC falls in the dumpster.
This sounds kinda premeditated though...
The wires count is suspect. USB 1.0-2.0 only use two wires for data (the other two are ground and power). USB 3.0 uses 4 for data (plus extra shield, 2 for USB 2.0 and 2 for power). I don't know well enough the others.
It's true that the actual data is sent over a lower number of diffpairs.
I suspect the shield is not included in the number of wires, since all USB cables have a shield (not sure if usb 3.0 has an extra return ground wire for high speed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction. USB 4 is actually going into an even worse direction. USB 4 = Thunderbolt 4, except everything is optional. e.g. USB 4 might not even support DP Alt mode. Thunderbolt 4 always will.
Even backwards compatibility is optional in USB4. There are USB4 devices (SSDs at least) that will not function when connected to USB 3 ports.
I actually like the 3.2 naming. Gen is speed, "by" is width. It puts it very roughly on par with PCIe's naming which nobody complains about. I just don't like that USB 3, USB 3.1, and USB 3.2 are the same things. And that sales people don't seem to understand that saying a chip supports 3.1 or 3.2 tells me it's anywhere from 5-20gbps which isn't ideal.
I use USB-C displays, but they run in DP Alt mode. I don't have many (any?) storage devices that can max out a 20gbps connection, and usually don't exceed 5gbps
Tangent: Author has this fabulous post I'd highly recommend: https://fabiensanglard.net/mjolnir/index.html I read it once years ago and I come back to it every now and then wishing my current PC (10+ years and going) would gently die so I could finally build something small and tiny.
You know, accidents happen. If you were to trip over the carpet and that venerable PC falls in the dumpster.
It's totally not because its density is probably close to lead given the concentration of parts in such a tiny space, with some rubber feat that thing ain't going nowhere.
Tangent: Author has this fabulous post I'd highly recommend: https://fabiensanglard.net/mjolnir/index.html I read it once years ago and I come back to it every now and then wishing my current PC (10+ years and going) would gently die so I could finally build something small and tiny.
You know, accidents happen. If you were to trip over the carpet and that venerable PC falls in the dumpster.
So it's happening, unfortunately I'm not paying for new RAM. So I'm planning a new rig around my existing CMK64GX4M4A2400C14 sticks.
I actually like the 3.2 naming. Gen is speed, "by" is width. It puts it very roughly on par with PCIe's naming which nobody complains about. I just don't like that USB 3, USB 3.1, and USB 3.2 are the same things. And that sales people don't seem to understand that saying a chip supports 3.1 or 3.2 tells me it's anywhere from 5-20gbps which isn't ideal.
Out of curiosity, what do you use the higher 20gbps transfer speeds for? Video production? I use USB-C displays, but they run in DP Alt mode. I don't have many (any?) storage devices that can max out a 20gbps connection, and usually don't exceed 5gbps
USB interface chips are, as far as I've seen, a Cypress/Infineon FX3 or a bit more rare FTDI FT600/FT601. I even talked with the FTDI guys at s conference and they said nobody's asking for higher than 5gbps. Infineon just recently, after I think 10+ years, came out with 10 and 20gbps chips. But only for receive. Seems to be for cameras mainly. So surprisingly yes, video production.
But I want it for other reasons professionally. For example, if you look at the signalhound (which uses the fx3) series of products, they often cap out at 40 Msamples/sec for USB. This is a classic 5gbps limit. To compete with the big boys they need 250 MHz if not more. That's 8 gbps before protocol overhead. It doesn't help that USB is extremely dependent on host compute capability to keep throughput up but assuming your PC is up to the task, 20 gbps could interface some serious data to the real world.
I once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current. Imagine the following naming: USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is…
The problem is just that the manufacturers and the tech press keep ignoring it...
[0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_performance_logo...
I once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current. Imagine the following naming: USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is…
That is exactly how the USB IF has been branding it for consumer use. They explicitly tell[0] implementers to not call it "USB 3.2 Gen2x2", but "USB 20Gbps". The problem is just that the manufacturers and the tech press keep ignoring it... [0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_performance_logo...
Especially once the mass produced cheap stuff starts being churned out, and there's no cost incentive to go back and fix wrong messaging. USB-IF constantly drops the ball around this ngl, feels like they're a pure scientific community that doesn't think about consumer adoption and UX.